tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post3300627213300142959..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: But It's All Subjective!Carlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger273125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-68508467722444949042010-12-04T05:28:24.748-08:002010-12-04T05:28:24.748-08:00ITT: Rob Went To School For This Shit And By God E...ITT: Rob Went To School For This Shit And By God Everybody's Gonna Know ItAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-19337978686996457202010-08-29T16:57:49.492-07:002010-08-29T16:57:49.492-07:00we aim to please.we aim to please.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-19272005938964982662010-08-24T02:12:49.389-07:002010-08-24T02:12:49.389-07:00Know this, Rob: reading this post has CHANGED MY M...Know this, Rob: reading this post has CHANGED MY MIND on the subject. I now actually view the vast and complex world of art criticism differently than I did before I read what you wrote here.<br /><br />I'm being completely honest; if you thought that no cuddlefish was actually swayed by your words, I'm here to tell you that at least one cuddlefish was.Toddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17927263389394763247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-64311401527460971182010-08-03T19:54:44.418-07:002010-08-03T19:54:44.418-07:00I never read it when it was active. I've tried...I never read it when it was active. I've tried to get into it since but never read any of the comics he wrote about, so I didn't care too much. I think some of readers moved here, maybe? I think at least one regular here once mentioned that he used to comment there too.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-15256001932370459212010-06-25T22:19:40.334-07:002010-06-25T22:19:40.334-07:00"Rob, Have you ever said anything nice about ..."Rob, Have you ever said anything nice about anything about an xkcd?"<br /><br />yes, frequently.<br /><br />"If you never find anything redeeming about the comics, then that is your problem and not something objective."<br /><br />good thing I do sometimes!<br /><br />"This blog has good things to say about good xkcds, but if you can't bring yourself to like the comic, any aspect of it, then you have no right to take the stance of the eternal bubble-burster imparting your grand knowledge to the deluded masses."<br /><br />good thing I'm not, then! Christ, did you even read the post?<br /><br />"If other people have liked any part of the comic, than no matter how many examples of people hating it you cite, you are still NEVER Objectively right."<br /><br />well, first off, this post is not about something being objectively bad. maybe you should develop rudimentary literacy before posting?<br /><br />second, by your little argument, anyone disagreeing with a fact makes that fact subjective! so if I disagree that you exist, your existence is not an objective fact. ditto the world being round, etc etc. people disagree with facts all the time! (they are called creationists.)<br /><br />"You rail on people for claiming subjectivity, but you never give any evidence that it's NOT subjective."<br /><br />seriously, did you read the post? the whole post is a really mundane list of things which are objective.<br /><br />"You pretty much have a prepared, stock argument for anyone who attacks a point you make."<br /><br />this is true, though completely irrelevant. you see, the only people who attack points that I made are incredibly boring people with no capacity for creative thought. when they make their boring little attacks on my work, I have already thought about it, and I have already thought about what I will say in response to it.<br /><br />actually, it's this tendency which tends to annoy people when I am writing an argument for something, because I have already thought of the potential avenues of attack, and for the most obvious ones, I will usually include a section cutting off those potential objections. it's part of a desire to be thorough.<br /><br />for the ones that are less obvious or more stupid, I don't include them in the initial post, but when someone makes them, it's no effort to simply respond with something I've already thought out.<br /><br />you will find, though, that people who actually have something interesting to say--people who engage with the text, who are willing to do something more interesting than what you have done (which is basically "ignore the text and attack what your puny brain assumes, incorrectly is the ultimate point of it"), will get a good conversation out of it.<br /><br />"Bottom line is: YOU ARE NOT DOING THIS CRITICISM THING RIGHT, STOP BEING A DICK."<br /><br />this would be more compelling if you had made a single point which was even remotely valid in your post. but no, I will not stop being a dick until cuddlefish stop being fucking morons.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-61987378762113729462010-06-24T20:20:11.933-07:002010-06-24T20:20:11.933-07:00Rob, Have you ever said anything nice about anythi...Rob, Have you ever said anything nice about anything about an xkcd?<br /><br />I can guess you response:<br /><br />"No, my parents taught me not to lie"<br /><br />or<br /><br />"No, have you ever said anything nice about horse shit?"<br /><br />If you never find anything redeeming about the comics, then that is your problem and not something objective. even This blog has good things to say about good xkcds, but if you can't bring yourself to like the comic, any aspect of it, then you have no right to take the stance of the eternal bubble-burster imparting your grand knowledge to the deluded masses. THAT IS THE EXACT STANCE YOU TAKE. If other people have liked any part of the comic, than no matter how many examples of people hating it you cite, you are still NEVER Objectively right. You rail on people for claiming subjectivity, but you never give any evidence that it's NOT subjective. You pretty much have a prepared, stock argument for anyone who attacks a point you make.<br /><br />Bottom line is: YOU ARE NOT DOING THIS CRITICISM THING RIGHT, STOP BEING A DICK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-89987800399711384112010-06-01T18:43:18.715-07:002010-06-01T18:43:18.715-07:00stick with arrogant suggestions (or vaunted opinio...stick with arrogant suggestions (or vaunted opinions). they're more fun.<br /><br />but yeah I need to write more about 'how to use language for fun and profit.' most people seem to think that it matters if your words are "right" or "wrong" instead of just "following a consistent and functional definition."rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-63428288231226053192010-05-31T02:56:16.041-07:002010-05-31T02:56:16.041-07:00First let me say that I enjoyed the essay and a br...First let me say that I enjoyed the essay and a brief skim of the comments, you amusingly acerbic asshole (and I mean that in the most endearing way possible, which I readily admit is perhaps not TOO endearing). You have a unique voice, which is always the mark of at the very least a competent writer, unlike the endless comments that could've been composed by a robot: "BEEP BOOP YOU SUCK ROB I REJECT YOUR LOGIC AND SUBSTITUTE MY IDIOCY"<br /><br />If you were going to post this somewhere else, though, in a slightly condensed, less-abusive form, I'd like to [humbly? or not. arrogantly if you like. or flagrantly. erotically? flamboyantly. wheee] suggest that you add a brief section beating people over the head about language a bit more.<br /><br />That is, by even engaging in a debate like this, you accept certain connotations and definitions which, while they may not be constant in all contexts, are nonetheless functionally objective for the duration. While the permutations of composed language may in fact be infinite, the possible meaning is vastly restricted, otherwise language and by extension the argument would quickly dissolve into incoherence.<br /><br />Also, it's always amusing to me to see the cuddlefish who continue to cling to the notion of blanket subjectivity as somehow invalidating what you're saying as if it didn't simultaneously remove any metric for devaluing your opinions.<br /><br />These are, of course, things you've addressed in either a simpler or implicit form, but I'm really just suggesting and nitpicking to fill up space because I wanted this post to contain something other than my raging argumentative hardon.<br /><br />Stay classy.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06999133130130974154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-48587324413614636962010-05-28T02:18:29.944-07:002010-05-28T02:18:29.944-07:00any timeany timershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-55448610801200925472010-05-27T06:35:38.382-07:002010-05-27T06:35:38.382-07:00I got a 70 on my essay. Thanks a bundle, Rob.I got a 70 on my essay. Thanks a bundle, Rob.Guy Who Couldn't Resist Coming Back To Checknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-45642873475766245892010-05-18T03:57:46.980-07:002010-05-18T03:57:46.980-07:00even idiots deserve the pleasure of my brilliance ...even idiots deserve the pleasure of my brilliance sometimesrshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-85042782861271001392010-05-15T08:46:09.470-07:002010-05-15T08:46:09.470-07:00Wow, Rob, you wasted four words on that guy? Four ...Wow, Rob, you wasted four words on that guy? Four words you will never get back?Gryffilionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14326158632676811873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-44537307996565750322010-05-12T12:11:15.115-07:002010-05-12T12:11:15.115-07:00"Would you mind explaining what the terms ..."Would you mind explaining what the terms 'true' and 'false' mean? "<br /><br />yes.<br /><br />"Now I'm sure you're going to say "Look in a fucking dictionary, moron, and find the definition of the word 'truth' in there. Then stop complaining and trying to use philosophical theory as a reference point.""<br /><br />nope.<br /><br />"On the other hand, I won't be coming back because I think (subjectively, yay) that while you make a lot of points in your blog that COULD be correct you DO tend to take the entire thing a little too seriously."<br /><br />nope.<br /><br />"Also on the 'derivative calculus' strip, I think you'll find that using the term 'derivative' was not a pun... A pun is a play on words, usually using homophones to make the joke - e.g. "Stop making jokes about sheep! Wait til I get my hands on EWE." That's a pun. Saying that someone who claimed to have invented calculus after you was being DERIVATIVE is a niche joke about calculus. It is not a pun."<br /><br />false.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-90369983510588131742010-05-08T22:30:26.915-07:002010-05-08T22:30:26.915-07:00"This is demonstrably false."
Um, yes. ..."This is demonstrably false."<br /><br />Um, yes. Right. Would you mind explaining what the terms 'true' and 'false' mean? Because quite frankly, no one is sure what they mean. Under the coherence theory, a lot of people (and we mean a LOT of people, let's say, a round number like 400 million) have to believe (subjectively) a statement to be the truth before it can become (objective) "fact".<br /><br />Did you know Geocentrism (that is, belief that the Sun and everything else in the universe revolves around the Earth) was fact for 1500 years? You know, the thing that, oh, 400 million people believed was the truth? It was classed as an objective observation because it was widely regarded as the truth.<br /><br />Now I'm sure you're going to say "Look in a fucking dictionary, moron, and find the definition of the word 'truth' in there. Then stop complaining and trying to use philosophical theory as a reference point."<br /><br />And you'd be right! The word 'truth' IS in the dictionary! :D<br /><br />But the problem is thatARGH-I-can't-be-arsed-to-argue-with-you-any-more.<br /><br />However, I have you to thank, because spending the time writing about this crap actually demonstratively explained how I'm supposed to finish my Philosophy essay.<br /><br />On the other hand, I won't be coming back because I think (subjectively, yay) that while you make a lot of points in your blog that COULD be correct you DO tend to take the entire thing a little too seriously.<br /><br />Also on the 'derivative calculus' strip, I think you'll find that using the term 'derivative' was not a pun... A pun is a play on words, usually using homophones to make the joke - e.g. "Stop making jokes about sheep! Wait til I get my hands on EWE."<br /><br />That's a pun. Saying that someone who claimed to have invented calculus after you was being DERIVATIVE is a niche joke about calculus. It is not a pun.<br /><br />[/pointlessRant]Guy Who's Three Months Late To The Party And Probably Won't Be Coming Backnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-46013255600938206222010-04-03T03:55:50.779-07:002010-04-03T03:55:50.779-07:00I want to start with my thanks to you Rob. Based o...I want to start with my thanks to you Rob. Based on previous observations I assumed you would voice aggression. Now I know better.<br /><br />Alas I must ask if attacking those who are "wrong" but otherwise are causing little to no harm just by enjoying a web comic is helpful and accurate?<br /><br /> I understand you want to find a better way of doing things, but, in my opinion (a strong emphasis on opinion), a war like attitude of "us versus them" when applied to a battle where "we" seek to better the whole is a self defeating one if we are willing to destroy those opposed to us rather than to show them the way.<br /><br />It's true, there are those who are less capable of comprehending some ideas but to credit solely them for their lack of vision is a stretch and is certainly no reason to abandon your cause to mockery. <br /><br />If they cannot understand then no amount of taunting will change that. If you are truly devoted I believe that you must seek to better yourself further so that you may present arguments they can understand and relate to. That kooky dude with the hair and the a-bombs I think said that "If you cannot explain something simply then you don't understand it enough" or something like that. If you've already simplified your arguments yet they still fail to grasp them... try harder.<br /><br />I think it would do good to explain your comprehension of objectivity and why you choose to accept it. Many who say there are no objective viewpoints have gone far, but not far enough. They pressed the envelope to arrive at the conclusion that there is no objectivity... ask them to push it further. Explain to them, using their own methodology, that no one can truly "know" given that the human mind is limited even logic is unsound. They think, logically, there is no objectivity but you can tell them that some sort of ruling can exist outside of our comprehension. You can also ask them to help in the finding of said rulings so that we are doing something rather than accepting defeat at the unknown. You can really get them by summing up that argument with the statement "It's logical in this case to think illogically."<br /><br />There will always be those who think differently and there is no way to know if they are truly wrong, so why be so quick to silence their ideas? Why not humor them? They might be on to something, and if not then by seeing things through you will only have found another that shares your view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-6882062696842747612010-03-31T21:45:41.698-07:002010-03-31T21:45:41.698-07:00well, yes, actual knowledge is impossible, but I g...well, yes, actual knowledge is impossible, but I generally encourage people to pretend enough to facilitate conversation.<br /><br />you seem to be basing objective too much on the observer. I'm assuming that the objective exists, even if it's unknowable, and that we can approximate some sort of understanding of the objective--that we can make claims which will be true regardless of who is saying them.<br /><br />asserting that art is purely subjective and that any sort of understanding or discussion of it is impossible is not helpful or accurate.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-28553314538597766182010-03-31T02:28:45.134-07:002010-03-31T02:28:45.134-07:00Ok, I’m totally unintelligent... there I saved you...Ok, I’m totally unintelligent... there I saved you some trouble rob... now you don't have to say it.<br /><br />I'm asking you to bear with me however... <br /><br />I'm making assumptions here (obviously)<br />I'll list some main ones.<br /><br />That you believe there are objective elements to art/humor<br /><br />That they can be observed and found<br /><br /> Before I proceed I'll ask (likely in vain) that any counter arguments be presented in a civil form for the sake of bettering understanding rather than to "put me down." I may be an idiot but does is help anyone to call me one rather than presenting the correct approach. I mean... would you belittle and mock a child having difficulties tying his or her shoe or would you help and teach him or her?<br /><br />You have presented a definition of objective and subjective of which I accept. I will however disagree that objectivity exists... outside the realm of thought.<br /><br />You have proposed that quantitative terms present proof that objective truths exist. If there are three pages to any given document that same document will be seen to have three pages to everyone, rite? I don't think so. <br /><br />I suppose all sane people would see three pages but the fact remains that not everyone will say there are three pages, (insane people might not). Besides that, a truly objective view point will be true no matter what, this goes beyond humans to include the unknown. Now the hypothetical situation of a being perceiving three pages as something else is shaky at best, that's not really the issue.<br /><br />In addition, if you get hit on the head and start seeing double you would see more than one.<br /><br />I suppose now one could say, "well, those are all misconceptions based on flawed perceptions." To that I must then ask you to consider your own perception. You see hear, taste, smell, and touch to determine whether not something is real. And I assume it's accepted that senses can be deceived. To that end how can be sure anything you perceive is really as it is? <br /><br />To present a clichéd example I'll give you the matrix. More appropriate to this idea I'll lead you to the thinkings of René Descartes.<br /><br />So basically there are no objective view points... outside of "I think therefore I am."<br /><br />I want to say though that humans seem to be limited in comprehension, (infinity and the concept of nothing). So it's reasonable to assume that there are other things the human mind can't comprehend. That in mind there may be an objective truth for everything that defies logic, however if that be the case it would still be impossible to logically find those truths.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-45301676342922218862010-03-19T09:38:58.967-07:002010-03-19T09:38:58.967-07:00I'm sure you guys probably field this question...I'm sure you guys probably field this question a lot, but did you ever hear of/read John Solomon's blog when it was still active?Gryffilionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14326158632676811873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-34653340248642399932010-03-19T02:18:33.588-07:002010-03-19T02:18:33.588-07:00Gryffilion: thanks! I wish I'd touched on a fe...Gryffilion: thanks! I wish I'd touched on a few other points but I think this is a good place to at least start a discussion of objectivity with people who are willing to have a conversation. Glad you've found it useful!rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-84087528326776371182010-03-19T00:47:16.820-07:002010-03-19T00:47:16.820-07:00ok, i won't get mad - just this once!ok, i won't get mad - just this once!Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-90376402488038145382010-03-18T19:36:44.630-07:002010-03-18T19:36:44.630-07:00Carl
I liked your #715 review
Please don't h...Carl<br /><br />I liked your #715 review<br /><br />Please don't hate meGryffilionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14326158632676811873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-25193007970343106352010-03-17T15:54:31.155-07:002010-03-17T15:54:31.155-07:00Cuz you're old hat Carl, Rob is the new blackCuz you're old hat Carl, Rob is the new blackAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-43037921880284049532010-03-16T22:22:26.238-07:002010-03-16T22:22:26.238-07:00why does rob get all the compliments....why does rob get all the compliments....Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-15630999531984077162010-03-16T14:56:53.891-07:002010-03-16T14:56:53.891-07:00I've been reading (and lurking on) this site f...I've been reading (and lurking on) this site for quite a while now, and just discovered this essay. I've sent it on to some well-intentioned friends who have said variations of the title to me at one point or another ("Who decides what is BAD?" and other such wonderful, cognitively-bulletproof "arguments"). A foundation for understanding the nature and role of criticism in every aspect of human creativity is sadly lacking, so thanks for filling the gap.Gryffilionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14326158632676811873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-72678910525234894502010-02-23T15:39:23.487-08:002010-02-23T15:39:23.487-08:00I missed the boat on the discussion here, just wan...I missed the boat on the discussion here, just wanted to post to say I really enjoyed this essay. That is all.Rinnonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15762967955629382937noreply@blogger.com